<div>I figured out how to use the blockqote feature. My bad.... ? </div><blockquote><div class="wpforo-post-quote-author"><strong>Posted by: BeatsAll-IEverSeen</strong></div><div> </div><div class="wpforo-post-quote-author"><span style="font-size: 12pt">The question is did Management have a practical, reasonable opportunity to re-assign the carrier to the route he/she is entitled to, which would depend on the circumstances. Posting a schedule does not relieve management of their obligation to follow 30.2.C.2 or 30.2.D. In the case of an auxiliary route, which we are discussing now, I would check out <em>Step 4, 2-24-93, H0R-2D-C 9177 </em>which says that "Grievant's [an RCA] service on the auxiliary route does not constitute unavailability."</span></div></blockquote><div>@beatsall-ieverseen Thanks for digging that up! I wish it wasn't so old (this Step 4 just had its silver, 25-year anniversary) and included more reasoning behind the decision. It covers my situation, though, so that's awesome. I just hope it still applies through the many National Agreements that have come and gone and been combinedly analyzed since then. ?</div><div> </div><div>I was reading through the National Agreement articles and matrix rules that have been mentioned, and haven't really grasped onto any additional argument I can can think to make based on those. I did find something I've been searching for, though -- the O-6 (Order of Consideration) document. I don't know how this document is normally used, but it seems fairly recent since the 2015-2018 Agreement is mentioned within it.</div><div> </div><div>On the first, main page of the O-6:</div><blockquote>1. Primary Assigned Leave ReplacementC. When a leave replacement is being scheduled on a<br />day-by-day basis, the primary substitute, RCA or RCR<br />must be scheduled for work on their primary<br />assignment if available, even if this results in<br />compensation at the overtime rate. (M-84-Pre-<br />Arbitration Settlement G00R-4Q-C 02139495, March<br />14, 2005)</blockquote><div>and to the point @rt2mailman made:</div><blockquote><div>7. Management may, on some occasions, split a route or<br />schedule an RCA to serve a regular route and an auxiliary route.<br />(NOTE: The NRLCA position is that the term “on some occasions”<br />does NOT include scheduling multiple assignments or splitting<br />routes on a repeated or on-going basis.) Except in emergency<br />situations, management must not schedule a leave replacement<br />to serve on two full assignments or one full assignment and one<br />or more partial assignments in a single day, if the evaluations of<br />these assignments total twelve hours or more. (R-96-Step 4<br />Settlement G95R-4G-C00170298, April 24, 2002, and P-115-<br />Wilson Letter September 1, 2000)</div></blockquote><div>Included in the O-6 are reference documents, page 10 being the seemingly-important-to-my-issue, M-84. Not included, though, is a part of the National Agreement that I thought might apply to my issue:</div><blockquote><div>Article 30.2.G.5</div><div> </div><div>After completion of the assigned auxiliary route or<br />primary route assignment, a leave replacement<br />assigned to serve the auxiliary route may be utilized<br />on any other auxiliary route or may provide auxiliary<br />assistance on any regular route.</div></blockquote><div>Reading the discussion so far, I'm seeing this issue boiled down to a disagreement over my "availability". This is specifically covered in the Step 4 (R-14.00) that @beatsall-ieverseen shared, when it states, "Grievant's service on the auxiliary route does not constitute unavailability." <strong>Can anyone understand where that statement is reasoned from?</strong> It makes sense to me, obviously, but I'm guessing I'll need to show my supervisor or local steward why it makes sense.</div><div> </div><div>Also, I read the <a title="Forum Guidelines" href="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/forum-guidelines/" target="true">Forum Guidelines</a>, where it asks "please refrain from including links to other postal websites", but I'm reading it to mean for news and things like that. <strong>Is it okay to post links to documents like the O-6 and similar that might only be found on the NRLCA's website?</strong> I realize you'd have to have a login to the union site to follow them, but still. I checked the <a title="Order of Consideration (O-6)" href="https://knowledgebase.ruralinfo.net/mdocs-posts/o-6/" target="true">knowledgebase here for the O-6</a> and it seems out-of-date compared to the union's version.</div><div> </div><div>Thanks to all who are helping me wrap my head around this in preparation! ? </div>
